Delisting and deregistration in the USDelisting and deregistration in EU   Deregistration of equity securitiesDeregistration of debt securitiesRules for counting shareholders        相似文献   
[首页] « 上一页 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] 10 [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] 下一页 » 末  页»
  首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
文章检索
  按 检索   检索词:      
出版年份:   被引次数:   他引次数: 提示:输入*表示无穷大
  收费全文   1018篇
  免费   26篇
各国政治   70篇
工人农民   31篇
世界政治   96篇
外交国际关系   72篇
法律   423篇
中国政治   17篇
政治理论   322篇
综合类   13篇
  2021年   7篇
  2020年   14篇
  2019年   20篇
  2018年   37篇
  2017年   32篇
  2016年   24篇
  2015年   24篇
  2014年   36篇
  2013年   143篇
  2012年   33篇
  2011年   20篇
  2010年   27篇
  2009年   31篇
  2008年   27篇
  2007年   40篇
  2006年   24篇
  2005年   22篇
  2004年   26篇
  2003年   27篇
  2002年   30篇
  2001年   16篇
  2000年   31篇
  1999年   22篇
  1998年   15篇
  1997年   25篇
  1996年   14篇
  1995年   16篇
  1994年   10篇
  1993年   13篇
  1992年   12篇
  1991年   11篇
  1990年   14篇
  1989年   9篇
  1988年   12篇
  1987年   22篇
  1986年   12篇
  1985年   12篇
  1984年   12篇
  1983年   10篇
  1982年   12篇
  1981年   9篇
  1980年   9篇
  1979年   11篇
  1978年   7篇
  1977年   6篇
  1976年   6篇
  1975年   9篇
  1974年   6篇
  1973年   6篇
  1967年   6篇
排序方式: 共有1044条查询结果,搜索用时 31 毫秒
91.
92.
93.
Buckland  Edward 《Trusts & Trustees》2007,13(9):589-590
Earlier this month saw the publication of the widely anticipatedand much welcomed ‘Practical Guide to the Transfer ofTrusteeships’, produced under the stewardship of STEPand edited by the triumvirate of Richard Williams, Toby Grahamand Arabella Saker. The book has a spectacularly wide remit in addressing not onlymatters of English Law, but also the jurisdictions of the Bahamas,Bermuda, BVI, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man,Singapore and Jersey. In  相似文献   
94.
Legal context: This article discusses the move from ex officio refusal of trademark applications based on relative grounds, to a notificationregime. The order making power for this derives from Section8 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Owners of qualifying earlier registered rights, in respect ofwhich registration of the subject application would be consideredto lead to a likelihood of confusion, will be notified of thelater subject application, and must decide for themselves whetherto oppose. Key points: The article examines the justification for such a shift, interms of the need for a proper evidence and submission basedevaluation of the respective marks, as well as the need to takeall market factors into account in any evaluation. It also addressesthe legal and cultural shift entailed in such a change. Finally,the article attempts to set out three objective measures bywhich an evaluation of success could be measured. Practical significance: The change will affect all those who already have, or will have,registered trade mark rights in the UK. The author's concernin particular is for those who will be receiving notificationletters and what their response might be - given that many willbe unrepresented. The author also believes that more notificationswill be sent out than marks that are currently ‘cited’.  相似文献   
95.
96.
97.
Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.  相似文献   
98.
99.
100.
The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points
  • While the passage of Sarbanes–Oxley in the USwas just one of the many causes for the lack of competitivenessof the US capital markets recently, it served to focus the attentionof foreign private issuers in the US on the difficulty and sometimesimpossibility of exiting the US capital markets.
  • Unlike manyother jurisdictions, the process of deregistering in the USis distinct from process of delisting. The current rules forderegistration of foreign private issuers focus on the numberof US shareholders, regardless of how or where those shareholderspurchased their shares. In addition, foreign private issuers,were subject to complicated rules for counting US shareholders,and deregistration often would only suspend (not terminate)their reporting obligations.
  • As a result of pressure from foreignprivate issuers, the SEC proposed new rules at the end of 2005to liberalize the existing deregistration regime for foreignprivate issuers. . . . [Full Text of this Article]
 
   1. Introduction    2. Importance of liberalizing the US deregistration rules    3. US and EU perspectives on deregistration    4. SEC's first proposal to amend the deregistration rules    5. Response to the first deregistration proposal    6. The Second Deregistration Proposal and The Final Deregistration Adoption    7. Conclusion
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号